A while back, I posted about the American Solidarity Party as a potential third way for Christians who are sick of the polarization, incompetence, and corruption involved with our two major parties, the party of death and the party of standing-for-nothing-but-at-least-we’re-not-Democrats. The ASP is a Christian democratic party of the kind seen in many European countries, to sum it up. But when I originally posted, I didn’t offer very much detail in their introduction. So now I want to do a relatively brief series of relatively brief posts on the ASP platform (read the whole thing here) and why I think it at least offers a general direction for a third way in today’s political situation.

So, for this first post on the platform, I want to comment on some highlights in ASP social policy, which is essentially a committed social conservatism. I haven’t included everything, only a few big points.

We support constitutional and legal measures that establish the Right to Life from conception until natural death.

We call for an end to capital punishment.

We oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The very first principle in the ASP platform is an unreserved pro-life one, even up to a Constitutional amendment to establish a right to life from conception. The Democrats are opposed to this, Libertarians are divided, and the Republicans who actually have any power pay lip-service but really just don’t care anymore. But the ASP makes it a #1 priority.

The ASP also opposes the serious evils of euthanasia and assisted suicide, a welcome addition. The opposition to capital punishment is likely off-putting to many of my evangelical friends, but really I think it’s not a half-bad idea, and even if you disagree I don’t think it should be viewed as a big problem.

We acknowledge that the Judeo-Christian worldview has played a positive role in the history and culture of the United States of America. We advocate for laws that allow people of all faiths to practice their religion without intimidation and deplore aggressive secularism that seeks to remove religion from the public sphere.

The ASP is committed not to theocracy or making Christianity dominate the state, but nonetheless they have no desire to have references to God, Christianity, and the like removed from the public square. They recognize our heritage and want to at least respectfully acknowledge it. They care to preserve the rights of all religions to be publically heard and expressive.

We support the legal recognition of marriage as a union of one man to one woman for life.

The ASP is committed to the defense of the Bill of Rights.

We deplore the reduction of the “free exercise of religion” guaranteed by the First Amendment to “freedom of worship” that merely exists in private and within a house of worship. The right to follow what the Declaration of Independence called “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” must be respected.

We will defend the rights of public assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. We oppose the expansion of censorship and secrecy in the interests of “national security.”

Another vital plank of the ASP platform is natural marriage. The Democrats hate it, the Libertarians generally oppose it, and the big Republican donors (with their silent establishment puppets) are all opposed to it now, so it probably won’t last on the RP platform for much longer. Natural marriage and the family are essential to the fabric of human society, and the ASP supports it explicitly.

The ASP is also strongly committed to basic American rights. Religious freedom and freedom of association, among others, are in pretty bad danger these days from all parties, though especially the Democrats and, while the Libertarians shouldn’t be this way, Gary Johnson is. And of course the battle has been lost on the Republican donors. But the ASP is committed to all Constitutional rights, especially free religion.

We support the decriminalization (not the legalization) of recreational drugs. Funds currently expended on the “war on drugs” should be directed toward prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation.

We support the implementation of the so-called “Nordic model” for dealing with prostitution by imposing stricter and more uniform penalties for the purchase of sex, decriminalizing the selling of sex, and providing viable employment alternatives to those who are exploited as prostitutes.

The ASP is also opposed to tough laws on social vices, as they seem to cause more harm than good. They prefer decriminalization (not legalization) so that average participants do not have to be stuffed into prisons with actual bad guys. These tough penalties help no one, hurt lots of people, and cost loads of money. The ASP would prefer an alternative system in which vices are problems to be solved moreso than crimes to be prosecuted.

This is in contrast to the Libertarians, who would usually like to actually legalize and normalize the majority of drugs and other vices. Such a system necessarily offers a social endorsement of those evils. But Democrats and Republicans keep wanting to make a bad thing worse by wasting time, money, prison space, and human life to punish people who are as much victims as perpetrators. Neither is desirable.

I’m #NeverTrump all the way. I will not vote for that man. But I realize many people feel compelled to, even if they don’t like him. Hillary Clinton is, after all, a frightening possibility if you care about things like abortion or religious liberty. If you really feel like Trump’s the lesser evil here, and you think your vote is actually a worthwhile and useful tool, then I won’t stand in the way of your conscience. (And before I say anything else, I should point out that I’m also #NeverHillary and I’m not thrilled with #GaryJohnson2016.)

That said, I would like to offer some considerations for your conscience to digest before casting a vote for Trump. If nothing else, I want to point out that a vote for Trump cannot be, for anyone who cares anything about Christianity, an enthusiastic vote. Compromise with Trump is one thing, but positive support for him is entirely unacceptable.

So, why do I think that Christians should refuse to vote for Trump? A handful of reasons.

Trump was pro-choice about 30 seconds ago. Is it really a coincidence that a sexually promiscuous man, people like whom benefit from abortion, only started saying he’s pro-life when he sought the nomination of a predominantly pro-life party? I find that awfully suspicious. It seems more likely that he’s just saying what his target voters want on this issue. If that’s true, we shouldn’t expect much help from him on abortion. More importantly, if that’s true, a vote for Trump is a vote for someone who actually doesn’t mind abortion, which is horrendous. After all, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:14).

Trump builds wealth for himself by exploiting people with sin and vice. It’s no secret that Trump gets lots of money from casinos and strip clubs. These are institutions that Christians tend to oppose, and for good reason. Casinos take advantage of people’s greed and weakness, and of what they know about human behavior, to ruin them financially for profit. Gambling institutions break down families and drive people into bankruptcy. Yes, the people who suffer must take responsibility, but so must the businesses who know these effects and use them to get rich, anyway. The same goes for strip clubs, except instead of ruining people financially they ruin them morally and sexually. Can Christians really say, “I think a man who pays young girls to take off their clothes and parade themselves before lustful men should run the country?” Yet Trump owns and runs both of these kinds of businesses for but one reason (there really is no other reason for these businesses): the love of money, which is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). If Trump will use these kinds of corrupt, immoral, vile, and antichrist methods to acquire money, what might he do for money with the power of the Presidency?

Trump is anti-family. Trump, we should recall, is a serial adulterer who has divorced two women so far to marry mistresses. We as Christians believe that stable, traditional families are the bedrock of civil society and were always intended to consist of lifelong faithfulness (Gen. 19:4-6). The benefits of marriages like this are numerous and well-documented. The damage done to society by the breakdown of these marriages is also extensive and well-known. Yet Trump contributes to this very breakdown, putting at the helm of our country someone who actively participates in one of the most destructive forces known to human society. Imagine, my conservative friends, if Trump was married to man. How many of you would vote for him then? Is repeated adultery, divorce, remarriage, and inappropriate sexual comments and conduct any better? To willingly endorse Trump is to give up all right to claim to care about “family values” or traditional marriage. Moreover, if this man cannot be trusted to even keep the most important vows of his life and be faithful to his wives he’s claimed to love, how can he be trusted to keep the oath of office and be faithful to the American people?

Trump is, well, morally bankrupt. It’s no secret that Trump has no virtues of any kind, or any redeeming moral qualities. Besides his sexual promiscuity and willingness to break sacred vows mentioned above, he is also cruel, arrogant, selfish, greedy, proud, a compulsive liar (far more than Clinton, who is dishonest enough), sexist, intentionally incendiary, and disrespectful to all people. Maybe charges of racism and xenophobia are exaggerated and misguided (or maybe they’re not), but it hardly matters when he treats all people poorly either way. Every time he has a chance, he proves these traits over and over. He speaks of people he doesn’t like in a way that I would spank my children for. The comments he makes about women are frequently either perverted or painfully demeaning. He bullies and attempts to silence people who disagree with or criticize him. He also uses corrupt, underhanded business practices to enrich himself at the expense of others, as mentioned above. And the disrespect he has shown to veterans and their families is entirely unacceptable.As conservative Christians, we have frequently made the character of our political leaders an important issue. Bill Clinton was rightly criticized for his sexual immorality (something Trump is familiar with) as President, and Christians lamented his reelection for, among other reasons, that very reason. He is not the only one to have been subject to this criticism, and rightly so. Character counts. Christians should hopefully realize this more than anyone, for “when the wicked rule, people groan” (Prov. 29:2). As Samuel Adams said, “Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable character.” Noah Webster agreed: “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.'”

Trump is spiritually bankrupt. To be sure, I don’t think we are obligated to vote only for Christians, much less spiritually mature ones. Nonetheless, I think politicians should be held at least somewhat accountable to the faith which they claim to adhere to. This is, to be sure, a problem for many politicians, and I wouldn’t usually consider it a make-or-break issue on its own. Nonetheless, Trump shows even the worst of the worst here. Trump has repeatedly shown himself to be as fake and nominal in his “Christian” faith as possible. His character mentioned above, plus his casinos and strip clubs mentioned also, prove that beyond a doubt. So do many of his statements from his own mouth about his faith, such as saying early in the race that he had never asked God for forgiveness, and later that he doesn’t plan on having to ask God for much forgiveness. His answer to “Who do you say that Jesus is?” is as shallow and worthless as any cheesy, MTD platitudes. His statements about his relationship with God and the Church reveal a complete lack of interest and involvement, and every time he mentions religion he does it in an obviously self-serving way. Trump is a blasphemer through and through, pure and simple. An honest atheist would take my vote a million years before Trump.

Finally, he can’t save America. Even if America is in as precarious a situation as most Trump-supporters imagine, which seems highly unlikely, there isn’t any actual evidence or reason to believe that Trump has any ability to improve the situation, or that any of his policies would be sufficiently better than Hillary Clinton’s to warrant him as a “lesser evil” vote. His brash, unpredictable nature makes for disastrous possibilities in foreign policy, an area which can save or kill thousands or even millions of human lives. His experience in business has hardly anything in common with the Presidential office, no matter what people ignorantly say to the effect that the “government is basically like a big business.” He has no self-control or self-restraint, which will only make our enemies hate us more and our allies like us less. He has a history of bullying and punishing people who criticize him, an awful tendency for the leader of the executive branch of the United States of America. If Congress doesn’t cooperate with him, which is quite likely, he will almost certainly be prone to continue and expand the practice of abusing power through executive orders. His use of torture will only add more blood to the hands of a nation already drenched in the blood of the aborted (speaking of whom, he will likely do nothing to help them, either). The comments he’s made about US borrowing are economically dangerous, to put it lightly, and he has had to be told repeatedly why he can’t just bust out the nukes. He is dangerous, probably moreso than Hillary Clinton (and that’s saying something).

So there is is. This is my own contribution to the #NeverTrump position in Christianity, and I hold to it firmly. If you still feel the need to vote Trump, if your conscious forces your hand, then do so. But at least don’t smile about it. An enthusiastic vote for Trump, I believe with all my heart, is blatant sin, for all of the reasons listed above. To take pleasure in Donald Trump’s run for President is to take pleasure in an abomination before God. Let us never do such a thing. Our kingdom is not of this world, and it will last under the reign of Christ for all eternity, long after America is just one empire among many in boring history textbooks. The stakes are never as high as they seem in the politics of this age, but the stakes for our souls remain always paramount. Trust in God, not men, much less men like Donald Trump. To burn a pinch of incense to Caesar was always wrong, but so would it have been to join the barbarians who took Rome down.

What does it mean to be consistently pro-life? Some things I think obviously fall short of consistency (e.g. exceptions for rape). But some problems are far more vexing and complicated. Not everything is clear.

Recently I’ve been dealing with this issue for the 2016 election. I don’t like one single candidate enough to actually vote for them so far. But thinking about my options has led to a curious and difficult question. Who do you do when you think a pro-life candidate will lead to more killings if elected, and a pro-choice one will lead to less?

For example, say candidate A is pro-life, but otherwise is an awful candidate. You suspect both that he will not do anything about abortion, and that in fact his policies are so bad that many more people will be driven into poverty and despair, and thus seek abortions. On the other hand, candidate B is pro-choice, but otherwise is an excellent candidate. You suspect that he also will do nothing about abortion, for or against, and that in fact his policies are so good that many people are lifted out of poverty and despair, and thus many fewer will seek abortions.

My first instinct is to go with candidate A. After all, I can’t know for sure what will happen, and I wouldn’t want my vote in any way to go behind a pro-choice policy, even if it doesn’t actually do anything. How can I compromise on human life?

But imagine this scenario is tweaked. This time, the Doctor comes from the future and gives you access to statistical data at the end of the next Presidency for each option. As it turns out, you were right. If pro-life candidate A wins, his awful policies will lead to twice as many abortions as candidate B’s. Twice as many children will be brutally murdered if candidate A becomes President.

Back in the present, does this affect your vote? If you know that twice as many children will be aborted if the pro-life candidate A wins the election, will you instead vote for pro-choice candidate B, even if that means in some sense compromising your values? Will you put your vote behind someone who supports the right to kill infants if it will save the lives of many infants?

I don’t know about you, but if I had such future knowledge settled I would vote for candidate B in a heartbeat. Not only are most of his policies good, but even though he supports a pro-choice policy I could still help save hundreds, even thousands, of children. But this becomes much more difficult when brought back to the real world, where such foreknowledge is hidden. We don’t know what effects any given President will have on abortion rates, assuming that none of them will/can do anything about abortion itself (which is probably true of all the candidates running right now). We can only guess. But how certain or uncertain must we be to decide? Maybe you don’t know that candidate B will lead to way less abortions, but you’re pretty convinced. Maybe you’re 80% certain, or even 90%. Then how do you vote?

This is the problem I’ve been wrestling with. Right now there is no resolution in sight. I don’t like anyone in the running right now, but abortion could swing me if I had good reason to believe children might benefit from any particular candidate’s Presidency. So I don’t know what I will do.

How about you? What do you think about this dilemma? Would you vote for A or B? If you had that hypothetical future knowledge, would you vote for A or B? What is the right way to handle this?

“Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not.” This quote from N. T. Wright (among others) reflects what he sees as a major subversive political message throughout the Gospels and the New Testament in its entirety. The fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead despite the agreement of Jewish and Roman political leaders to kill Him means that the authorities of this world have no real power. The greatest power of tyrants is death, and Jesus undid death. This reality of resurrection is a threat to all world powers. Christ’s people are therefore free to live as citizens of the kingdom to come and not the kingdoms of this world.

Of course, this sounds rather irrelevant to modern life for the most part, at least in the Western world and America. We don’t live in a dictatorship, or an absolute monarchy, or a police state, or any recognizable kind of political tyranny. Instead we pride ourselves on being a free country. So the significance of “Jesus is Lord, [insert political power here] is not” can be lost on us.

But at the same time, there is something slightly subversive even now in saying, “My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not the United States of America. My country is from above, and in this nation I live as a foreigner. The President, Congress, and the courts can say what they like, but if I obey them it is to better serve Christ, and not for their sake.” After all, we look to the government to affirm right and wrong, do something about our national problems, and maintain order among the people. So a statement like this grounded in Jesus risen Lordship can’t help but strike lots of people as at least a bit rebellious and dangerous.

But what brings me to this topic? I know this will get me a facepalm from my more liberal friends (both politically and theologically), but it’s of course about a certain Supreme Court case. Unless you’ve been living under a rock lately, you probably know that Obergefell v. Hodges is set to determine the future of gay marriage in all 50 states. And unless you’ve been living under a rock for 50 years, you can probably guess how this will turn out. Given the status of public opinion on gay marriage, and the spirit of the age, it seems likely enough that this case will result in the determination of a “Constitutional right” to gay marriage in the entire nation.

Obviously, the mere existence of gay marriage won’t hurt me or others who oppose it, but the real issue comes in the affect unanimous government approval of gay marriage would have on churches and Christian schools. As it stands, most churches can choose to only hire straight pastors and other staff members and to only marry straight couples. Generally, Christian schools are not obligated to hire gay teachers or enroll students in gay marriages. We have moral standards based on traditionally solid readings of the Holy Scriptures, and we can for the most part honor those beliefs in how we run schools and churches.

This may very well not continue following the Supreme Court’s ruling. If you’ve paid attention to the news lately, you may have seen the comment by Solicitor General Donald Verrili in the case arguments. Chief Justice John G. Roberts asked him about the tax exempt status of religious schools who oppose gay marriage. Bob Jones University was previously stripped of their tax exempt status for banning interracial relationships, and the Chief Justice asked if the same would happen to places with policies against homosexuality. The response:

You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.

So we have from the mouth of an important political official that there will be some kind of problem with the ability of Christian colleges to oppose gay marriage if the ruling enforces its recognition. That is dangerous to Christians, since here we have the legitimate possibility of the government wielding taxation as a weapon to make believers conform to the mindset of the world at large. If this happens, it will be the declaration, “We are Lord, your Jesus is not.”

This problem can also be seen in the statements of various politicians around the nation. Most recently Hillary Clinton comes to mind. Here’s what she said about abortion “rights”:

Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced…Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper…Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

There’s no trick or quote mining here. Hillary’s record on these matters speaks for itself. For Hillary Clinton, one of the foremost representatives of the Democratic Party and half the country, religious convictions are an obstacle to be overcome so that people can have abortions. Disagreement cannot be tolerated. The law must spite religious belief and move the people towards liberalism’s goals.

Unfortunately, beliefs like these are all to common and seem to be the trajectory of the government. Soon Christian schools and churches are likely to be faced with a choice: obey Christ or country. Let your judge be God or government. And of course if you choose to believe that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not, there will be consequences. They’ll likely start out purely within the economic sphere (taxes and fines), but do not be surprised if they move on from there. Christian schools could potentially lose accreditation. Churches could lose their buildings. And there’s always the possibility of more “hate speech” laws leading to jail time for Christian pastors, professors, and bloggers.

Of course, I’m not here simply to scare anyone or complain about the victories of some conspiratorial liberal elite. I’m simply making the point that our government is reaching a point where it considers itself the “father” of church. Religions are like rambunctious children who must be corrected and disciplined so that they will do what their parents want. The state is to keep the church in line, not the other way around. This is dangerous and points ever so subtly towards an innocent-looking, nearly accepted totalitarianism.

We know, however, that Jesus is Lord and the U.S. government is not. Whatever they say, we must continue to follow Christ. For we don’t obey the laws of this world for their own sake, as though they had any real authority. We obey them for the Gospel, so that by submitting to the institutions God has given power for the sake of maintaining order we may live quiet, respectful, and peaceful lives which witness to God’s amazing grace in Jesus Christ.

This means that when it comes down to it on issues like abortion and gay marriage, or anything else which comes up, we will not waver but follow the faith we have received. We trust that whatever the fallout, we will be vindicated and restored by our Father, if not in this life then in the resurrection. But this also means that we should not go out of our way to cause trouble. While we should stand our ground, we should avoid being feisty, aggressive, or rebellious. These are not Christian virtues and will only unnecessarily hinder our respectable witness.

I suppose I’ve rambled a bit, so here’s my main point: the U.S. government is coming to a place where it thinks it can control the Christian religion. But it cannot. Whatever authority it presumes to have is undermined by the victory of Jesus. So if they try to oppose us in whatever ways, we are already on the winning side. Because of Christ, we need not fear or get feisty, but can be bold, brave, and also respectably self-controlled. For Jesus is Lord, and the U.S. government is not.

One of the greatest connections Evangelical Calvinism put together in my head is that Jesus is the image of God, and we were made in the image of God. The imago dei, that divine imprint we all bear, is grounded in our sharing of a nature with God in Christ. Jesus’ humanity makes our humanity the sacred thing that it is.

Connecting all human life to Jesus’ human life affects many issues, and abortion is no exception. Believe it or not (I know for most people in my life circles this is probably hard to believe), there are otherwise solid Christian individuals, groups, and churches who believe abortion is not necessarily sinful. This is, in my opinion, our generation of the Church’s most tragic, or at least one of the most tragic, failing. But I do not deny their genuine faith, for Christians in every age have held similarly horrid positions.

Since I do accept these brothers as members of one faith in one Christ, I would like to engage with them constructively rather than ignore them or vilify them. On many issues I hold the reservation that I might be wrong. Not so here, and I therefore think it is very important to have this conversation, and hopefully help my friends see the light on this matter.

Okay, enough with the introduction. What is my actual argument? Well, it’s fairly straightforward. Human worth, identity, and sanctity are all bound up with the image of God we were made in. This image is no other than Jesus Himself, God as a human being. By becoming a human Jesus gave humanity the image of God and our worth (not that humans lacked God’s image before Jesus’ arrival; His Incarnation is an eternal fact which affects even the dawn of time).

The significance of this for abortion is that we them humans (teens and kids, too!) have God’s image and a right to life because God was one of us. Jesus brought unity between God and humanity by being both in His earthly life. This applies to abortion because Jesus’ incarnation, His human existence, did not begin at His birth but while He was still in the womb! God did not only become a born child, but an unborn one. In fact, it seems Biblically safe to say that God became man at conception. (To say otherwise seems to me to run the risk of various Christological heresies.)

Because in Jesus even unborn humanity was united with God, it is impossible to deny them the same value, dignity, and protection that we expect as grown people. Our lives are sacred because Jesus lived as one of us, and in that life He lived as an unborn child as well, so their lives are just as sacred. We cannot just kill them, especially as innocent and helpless as they are, any more than we can just kill anyone else.

In fact, the issue is bigger than killing a created being. God in Jesus identifies with all who share the human nature of His Son, and is especially concerned with the needy, oppressed, and helpless. Violence against any human being, especially one like that, is violence against God Himself. Killing any human, including the unborn, is akin to crucifying Christ because in Christ all people are gathered up and bound to their Creator.

I know this will not immediately sway any believer who happens to be pro-choice. It’s not often people approach any issue, much less abortion, from the perspective of Jesus’ Incarnation. But it is vital that we do so, especially here where the issue is one of life and death. I do pray you will all consider this with Scripture and prayer. And if you’re pro-life but know a pro-choice believer, I encourage you to share this with them. Maybe God can use it to change some hearts if we ask.